Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Todd Frankel blogging at The Washington Post:

So what does the study say?

It’s hefty, running 121 pages. The title is “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and National Research Council published it in 2013.

And the study clearly makes the case for why more gun-violence research is needed.

The CDC requested the study to identify research goals after Obama issued his January 2012 executive order. The National Academies’s study authors clearly see gun violence as a problem worth examining:  “By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem.”

The authors suggested focusing on five areas: the characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, gun safety technology and the influence of video games and other media. The document is peppered with examples of how little we know about the causes and consequences of gun violence — no doubt the result of an 18-year-old CDC research ban.

But gun-rights supporters zeroed on in a few statements to make their case. One related to the defensive use of guns. The New American Magazine article noted that “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

So it would appear the “good use” of guns outweighs the “bad use.” That may be true, except the study says all of those statistics are in dispute — creating, in the study authors’ eyes, a research imperative.

You can read the whole post for yourself.  I’ve lifted the money quotes out (and hopefully not out of context).  Mr. Frankel charges gun-rights activists with an error in interpretation of data and statistics, and whether Mr. Frankel is correct in his own interpretation or not is irrelevant.  The Germane point is that gun rights activists – if they are indeed using such data and statistics to demonstrate a point – are in error for simply using the data, not for misinterpreting it.

We’ve discussed this before.  I’ve made the point that “what happens to society at the macroscopic level is immaterial.  My rights involve me and my family, and don’t depend on being able to demonstrate that the general health effects in society are not a corollary to or adversely affected by the free exercise of them.  It’s insidious and even dangerous to argue gun rights as a part of crime prevention based on statistics because it presupposes what the social planners do, i.e., that I’m part of the collective.”  I object to John Lott’s procedure, and have stated frequently that I do not believe in the second amendment.  I believe in God.  The Almighty grants me the rights to be armed, and when the Almighty has spoken, it is eternal law for all men everywhere and in all ages and epochs.  See also Holding Human Rights Hostage To Favorable Statistical Outcomes, and Kurt Hoffman on the same subject.

There is probably little constitutional basis for such a thing as the Centers for Disease Control at the expense of our tax dollars even when studying diseases.  But there is certainly none whatsoever for its existence when it pens studies for the express intent of infringing on God-given rights.  If gun rights activists are arguing statistics with the collectivists, that’s the mistake right there.  Full stop.  Don’t do that.  Ever.  You presuppose their world view when you do that.

Vice News:

As US lawmakers are proposing nixing gun-free zones and arming teachers and guards with firearms to halt potential school massacres, one pro-gun group has unwittingly provided a case in point against fighting guns with more guns.

The Truth About Guns, a weapons rights group based in Texas, recently recreated a set mirroring the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, where masked gunmen last week killed 12 people. The group then reenacted the massacre with paintball rounds to determine whether throwing an “armed defender” into the mix could have saved lives.

In nearly every single setup, the armed civilian — portrayed by 12 different local volunteers — died. The only exception was in the scenario where the team member with the gun immediately fled the scene.

The group ran the exercise in Plano, Texas and posted footage from a camera mounted to one of the attacker’s rifles to YouTube on Thursday. The Truth About Guns did not immediately respond to VICE News’ request for comment on the experiment Friday.

Sigh.  I’m not even going to link the video.  It’s meaningless.  Here’s Uncle’s take on it.

So, if one were to recreate what happened, they’d probably do something based on what happened. Or, instead, you could get some firearms trainers who know how to handle simunitions, let them strap on their gear and tell them to go practice a room-clearing exercise on random people you got to volunteer off the street to play CCW holder. Surprisingly, the firearms trainers manage to outperform the random people from the street.

Then, you could compound the error by inviting local media. Then, you get picked up by all the shitty, sensationalized listicle sites and are all over social media. And, boom, you got self-promotion.

Leave it to the occasional jackass to conclude that gun control helps the situation.

France’s ban on guns isn’t actually a gun ban of any sort. In fact, most French citizens share the same rights to firearm ownership as Americans.

The difference, however, is that French leaders haven’t sold out to the deep pockets of gun manufacturers and their lobbying group and removed important regulations that dramatically alter the mindset of citizens about those very deadly firearms.

Instead, these are the ultra-restrictive laws that some claim were responsible for the French terrorist attacks: Citizens must acquire a license to own a gun, including handguns. A requirement to obtain and keep that license is that the holder show proof of being an active shooting club member with at least three trips to the range each year and certification from a physician of the holder’s physical and mental capabilities.

Once that license is acquired, the only “gun ban,” is on fully automatic weapons, just like the one in the U.S.

Aside from that, the French can own pretty much any gun that an American can own.

But usually, they don’t own them. They don’t carry them around on their hips like this is some old West movie.

But it’s more invasive than that.  This point of view was written by a Frenchman right after Newtown.

From the French point of view, this shooting is just another example of the United States’ gun addiction …

France, however, underwent a major shift in its regulation of weapons in 1939. The French government worried that tough living conditions during the upcoming war with Germany could lead to revolts and unrest similar to those experienced by Germany and Russia during World War I. The government thus passed a law that would ban most guns. Moreover, when the Germans invaded France in 1940, another decree required every Frenchman to hand over his weapons.

This ban, justified by historical reasons, remained enforced after the war and has been the backbone of French firearm regulation ever since. In today’s legislation, the only weapons easy to purchase are hunting rifles, which has remained a French pastime.

The purchase of any type of military and civil firearm is only permitted in shooting sports for which a license is required. To obtain the licence, a year long process is required, including  a 6 month membership at a shooting club and background check by the police. This license needs to be renewed every three years.  Thus, for the last 73 years, weapons, except hunting rifles, have been ban for most Frenchmen. Promoting a gun-free environment has become the country’s answer to preventing mass shootings.

But it didn’t prevent a mass shooting, and I wonder if this Frenchman would care to revisit his position since the recent shooting in Paris?

See this analysis and this analysis for a discussion of category A, B, C and D in French gun control law, and if you wish to carry a handgun for personal defense, that isn’t viable.  It won’t happen in France.

Simply put, any attempted analysis, including that at TTAG, that focuses on what happens when shooters who plan their attack go to work on unsuspecting victims who have handguns (or nothing) proves only that when defending against attackers with foreknowledge and rifles, you would rather have foreknowledge and rifles yourself.

There are other variables that such a test doesn’t measure, such as could a potential victim in another room, hearing the commotion or seeing the attack, prepare in such a way as to save his life and the lives of others?  Philosophers call it “possible worlds,” and reenacting events like this one doesn’t even come close to exploring what might have, what could have, what may have happened.

Ignore all such “tests” and “reenactments.”  Arm yourselves to have a better chance to live in such an attack.  That’s the simplest and best advice anyone can give you.  The rest is just self promotion.

We’ve covered the AR-15 and its adherents and detractors in The Reliability Of The Eugene Stoner Design and Blaming The Gun For The Battle Losses concerning the battle of Wanat.  In the test shown below, this AR-15 endures a test of greater than 800 rounds in a short duration of time.

David Codrea:

With body numbers described as “too many to count,” but with estimates ranging from “hundreds” to “2,000,” mass murders in Nigeria are being described by Amnesty International as “the deadliest massacre” in the history of the Boko Haram terror group.

“Most victims are children, women and elderly people who could not run fast enough when insurgents drove into Baga, firing rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles on town residents,” the Associated Press reported a government official claiming.

David then goes on to describe the gun control in Nigeria, and states “Nigeria appears to be a land where the results of such “progressive” policies should be evident for all to see and emulate.”  Read all of David’s article.

And gun control has indeed been one of the catalysts for the rise of Islamic extremism.  I have long lamented the failure of men and women to arm themselves against Islamists, Christians in particular who falsely believe that Biblical theology requires pacifism, noting that it is a moral failure to ignore the protection of family and self.

But make no mistake about it, these are heavier weapons, perhaps some ever crew serve weapons, and arming with rifles and pistols wouldn’t have stopped the assault on the city.  But what being armed would do is stop them before they become strong enough to perpetrate such a ghastly attack.

An example of such aggressive use of force can be seen in the history of the Ethiopian Army in Somalia, where they have had measurable success against the Islamists.  The “Christian” army of Ethiopia has no intention of allowing Muslims to savage their people, and they are willing to take action before it is too late to secure those ends.

Individual and segregated actions cannot achieve security against an organized enemy using heavy weapons.  This requires family, tribe and militia, all of which are armed and willing to take the hard measures necessary to kill a determined enemy.

That there are men who allow women, children and the elderly to perish while they run away scared doesn’t bode well for the future of Nigeria.  For men who believe there is nothing after death – that a body cools to ambient temperature and there is nothing more – running away scared may make sense.  For Christians, there are more important things that staying alive because death is just the beginning of our life in eternity.

And finally, don’t be fooled by the recent Islamic violence in France.  The Islamists don’t really care about cartoons in the face of more important things.  They just can’t find anyone left in France who believes anything to attack.  Now, if they hear Christians with one voice, saying something like this:

I believe in God,

the Father almighty,

Creator of heaven and earth,

and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died and was buried;

he descended into hell;

on the third day he rose again from the dead;

he ascended into heaven,

and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;

from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy christian Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and life everlasting. Amen.

Then the real enemy of Islam has spoken.  Islam is darkness, and it cannot abide the light.  Since it cannot abide the light, it won’t allow a marketplace of ideas where truth can be discerned from falsehood.  Arm yourselves.  Prepare to do battle.  It’s coming whether you know it or not.

Communities Digital News:

David Codrea:

With an administration policy abetting immigration by disparate cultures with incongruous goals, such attacks may be inevitable. If and when one does happen, the probability is that it will occur in an area where private carrying of firearms has not been normalized, and is discouraged or outright prohibited. As for any and all laws in place, the attackers will ignore them, as they always do.

I think David is saying – with some degree of regret for those to whom he refers – that there will be a price to pay for your collectivist voting history.  You are an easier target for the terrorists.

David Codrea:

New House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz took his first action for the new congress by renewing the subpoena to compel Attorney General Eric Holder to produce documents related to Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking” …

We’ll see where this goes.  But Jason Chaffetz, for all of his appearances to oppose the establishment, is an establishment kid.  If he likes Boehner, that says something about his character.

Kurt Hofmann:

So now, any gunsmith or machinist who is hired by the “gun” owner to complete the machining is going to be ruled to have “manufactured” a gun, and will thus be held to the same restrictions that apply to all commercial gun manufacturers. The BATFE is insisting on having its cake and eating it, too. They have previously argued that an 80% receiver ceases to be an 80% receiver, and becomes a “firearm,” if the manufacturer does so much as scratch an outline showing where material needs to be milled away; but now, if the buyer of what the BATFE recognizes as an incomplete receiver similarly removes some of the material that must be removed in order to make the receiver function in a firearm, and then turns it over to a skilled professional gunsmith or machinist to finish the work, the professional ends up being considered the one to have “manufactured” the gun.

In order to understand how Kurt got to this point you have to read his entire article.  I was shaking my head.  I shouldn’t be, but I’m surprised almost daily at the control freaks who make up the federal government.

Mike Vanderboegh on the thin blue line.  So here are two questions.  First, when is the last time you “lost a rifle?”  Second, when is the last time you shot at a dog, missed and killed someone?  Readers can weigh in.

Mike Vanderboegh: Ghostly Echoes From History, Part IV.  Mike begins with my favorite quote from John Adams.  “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  This is a pregnant statement and perhaps we’ll explore it in detail one day too.  In the mean time, read Mike.

Robert H. Scales wrote a piece for The Atlantic entitled Gun Trouble, with the catchy subtitle as follows: The rifle that today’s infantry uses is little changed since the 1960s—and it is badly flawed. Military lives depend on these cheap composites of metal and plastic. So why can’t the richest country in the world give its soldiers better ones?

Scales then proceeds to rehearse the history of flaws after the initial rollout of the M-16 in Vietnam, well known flaws (and failed to mention others, such as the fact that the chamber and barrel weren’t chrome-lined in the initial stages of production).  He pans the 5.56 mm NATO round, and ends up recommending two (what he considers to be) improvements.  First, he wants a larger caliber round, and second, he wants a gas recirculation system rather than the current DI system in use in the Eugene Stoner design (He fails to mention that the gas recirculation system weighs the front end of the rifle down and makes it more difficult to maneuver in CQB such as room clearing.  This is a point made to me by my son, who didn’t even like my quad-rail on the front end of my RRA rifle due to its weight).  Scales points to Wanat as proof positive that American lives are being wasted by a bad design.

The M4, the standard carbine in use by the infantry today, is a lighter version of the M16 rifle that killed so many of the soldiers who carried it in Vietnam. (The M16 is still also in wide use today.) In the early morning of July 13, 2008, nine infantrymen died fighting off a Taliban attack at a combat outpost near the village of Wanat in Afghanistan’s Nuristan province. Some of the soldiers present later reported that in the midst of battle their rifles overheated and jammed. The Wanat story is reminiscent of experiences in Vietnam: in fact, other than a few cosmetic changes, the rifles from both wars are virtually the same. And the M4’s shorter barrel makes it less effective at long ranges than the older M16—an especially serious disadvantage in modern combat, which is increasingly taking place over long ranges.

In spite of the high number of kills in the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Scales calls the 5.56 mm a “varmint round.”  We’ve seen all of this before, much of it coming from experience many decades ago.  But we’ve seen testing that simply shows much of the bad press for the Stoner design (and good press for the Kalashnikov design) to be false.  Recall the testing done on the Knights Armament rifle, and reader Pat Hines sends two more examples here and here.  The point is granted that Rock River Arms, Knights Armament, LaRue Tactical and Daniel Defense isn’t the Colt produced under milspec for the Army and Marine Corps (these are all superior to the Colt M-16 and M-4).  Furthermore, recall that we’ve discussed what it means to be milspec and what it doesn’t.  Not milspec isn’t always worse, and milspec isn’t always better.

Still, my own son Daniel tells me that he never had any problems with either his SAW or an M-4 when he used that in training and in Fallujah, Iraq (while still claiming that my RRA rifle was better than the Colt he used).  The biggest problem with Scales’ argument isn’t that it doesn’t rely on hard evidence regarding quality battle rifles today (and it doesn’t, and some AR-15s are better designed and manufactured than the M-4 it must be admitted).  The biggest problem with his argument is that it blames the wrong culprit.

My coverage of the Battle of Wanat goes back to before the Cubbison report, from 2008 until recently.

Analysis Of The Battle Of Wanat

Investigating The Battle Of Wanat

The Contribution Of The Afghan National Army In The Battle Of Wanat

The Battle Of Wanat, Massing Of Troops And Attacks In Nuristan

Second Guessing The Battles Of Wanat And Kamdesh

And many other articles.  I am proud to have contributed in some small way to the Wanat report still on file at Fort Leavenworth (on page 255 three of my articles are cited).  Specifically, it was published by the Combat Studies Institute Press, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center.

The kill ratio was indeed lower at Wanat than has been noted at other engagements, but the fact that Soldiers had to put 400 rounds through their weapons in such a short time frame is indicative of a different problem than the gun.  First of all, with all due respect to the Soldiers who were there, fire control and long distance optics would have been a valuable commodity.  When training his “boots,” my son worked first, middle and last on rate of fire and fire control.  And use of a larger bore weapon wouldn’t have helped barrel temperature (have you ever shot a large caliber weapon?), and would certainly have hurt the ability to regain sight picture after firing due to significant recoil.

Use of DMs with M-14s or bolt action sniper rifles would have helped (the Marines make use of such tactics), as would have training in shooting uphill (to which very few units train – I know this from conversations with Army trainers).  But the biggest problems with Wanat were associated with command choices that could have been done differently.  Vehicle Patrol Base Wanat (it was a VPB rather than a FOB), took entirely too long to set up, allowing enemy massing of forces, something I’ve noted on a number of occasions in Afghanistan (it’s a favorite tactic when the Taliban think they can greatly outnumber their opponent).

Furthermore, terrain was critical in that the U.S. troops didn’t control the high country surrounding the VPB which was in a valley.  One Marine Captain commented to me as follows:

The platoon in Wanat sacrificed control of the key terrain in the area in order to locate closer to the population. This was a significant risk, and I don’t see any indication that they attempted to sufficiently mitigate that risk. I can empathize a little bit – I was the first Marine on deck at Camp Blessing back when it was still Firebase Catamount, in late 2003. I took responsibility for the camp’s security from a platoon from the 10th Mountain Div, and established a perimeter defense around it. Looking back, I don’t think I adequately controlled the key terrain around the camp. The platoon that replaced me took some steps to correct that, and I think it played a significant role when they were attacked on March 22nd of 2004. COIN theorists love to say that the population is the key terrain, but I think Wanat shows that ignoring the existing natural terrain in favor of the population is a risky proposition, especially in Afghanistan.

The force was simply too small (platoon size versus virtual battalion size Taliban force), and they were simply outgunned.  It’s remarkable that they didn’t have even more casualties.  Blaming the gun we deployed with the Soldiers is the easy thing to do.  It’s also the wrong thing to do, and it’s disingenuous.  Blaming the men who made the decision to deploy the way they did would be the hard thing to do because it gets personal.  But at least it would be honest.

See also:

Battle Of Wanat Category

War is Boring, The M-4 Carbine Is Here To Stay

Dan Morgan on Wanat

WeaponsMan Part 1 and Part 2

The Firearm Blog

As an update to my article on the arrest of Danny Gray Lambeth for open carry of a rifle, I do not know Mr. Lambeth and have no way of contacting him.  I would like to know more about the story, but cannot afford the time to travel and sit through a court hearing, especially given that hearings can be postponed on the spot multiple times depending upon what the lawyers and judge want to do.  I have also searched new reports every day since the original report, only to find no updates.

But I did forward a complaint to the office of the North Carolina Attorney General, and heard back the next day.  Basically, I stipulated to the caller (himself a former prosecuting attorney) that I didn’t know all of the facts of the case, and he stipulated to me (after I pressed the point) that arrest for open carry in the county of Davidson while leaving me alone in Mecklenburg County to open carry is capricious and arbitrary, unless there are other facts of the case such as brandishing or threatening (which are both illegal anyway).

And I insist that readers and the legal system stipulate as follows: arrest in one county while allowing open carry in another allows LEOs capricious and arbitrary choices, and by the very definition this isn’t justice.

Winston-Salem Journal:

Davidson County deputies arrested a man who was walking around a neighborhood with an assault rifle, according to a news release today from the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office.

Danny Gray Lambeth, 51, of Old U.S. 52 in Winston-Salem was charged with going armed to the terror of the public.

According to the sheriff’s office, deputies responded to the area of 10711 Old U.S. 52 on Saturday after receiving a report of a man walking around residences with an assault rifle. During the investigation, Lambeth was identified as the suspect.

Let’s ignore for the sake of argument the idiotic press report about this being an “assault rifle” (which is wasn’t unless it had select fire mode).  As I’ve discussed many times before, I open carry from time to time as a resident of North Carolina.  We are a traditional open carry state.  I have never had any problems from Baker 2 of the CMPD (who usually ignore me or wave and smile), but even the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department had to be reminded by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the open carry of a firearm in North Carolina does not create a “reasonable suspicion” to effect arrest.

It simply doesn’t, so says a federal court.  Case closed.  End of discussion.  Moreover, North Carolina has no stop and identify statute.  Case closed.  End of discussion.  It couldn’t be clearer.  If LEOs aren’t being taught that in their classes, they are being misled and put on the street without the proper training.  That’s malfeasance on the part of the chief LEO.

We have dealt with this before, where I have noted instances where LEOs have unholstered their weapons and pointed them (I assume with a round chambered) at men simply for openly carrying a weapon.  Someone will be killed in such an exchange one day, I have admonished.  And yet, we still see arrests for open carry in North Carolina.

I want to know why?  What about North Carolina being an open carry state don’t CLEOs get?